Beyoncé, double-dipping, press freedom and more

Beyoncé’s Cuba trip

The Sunday’s U-T reported that two Florida GOP members of Congress have questioned the type of license Beyoncé and husband Jay-Z had to travel in Cuba recently (“Beyoncé Cuba trip stirs GOP interest,” April 7). They referred to the fact that U.S. law prohibits most Americans from traveling there without a license from our own government. The rest of the world’s people travel to Cuba freely as tourists. We in the U.S. are denied that option by our own government, not the Cuban government.

The two GOP members of Congress cited Cuba’s past “atrocities” as justification for U.S. prohibition against our going to Cuba as tourists. Really? Then how come we can travel to every other country in the world that has committed atrocities in the past – such as Germany, China, Russia, Argentina, South Africa, etc.? What about respecting our freedom to travel? Is this our Cuban-American “Iron Curtain”?

U.S. tourists can sympathize with those Cuban-Americans who suffered from the Cuban revolution; however, that is no reason to prohibit U.S. tourists from joining the rest of the world in Cuba. In January this year I visited Cuba on a people-to-people tour through a U.S.-licensed group, Roads Scholar, and thoroughly enjoyed traveling the length the island and sampling the rich culture. But no beaches or other “tourist” stops for us – they are deemed “illegal” by our outdated federal laws that are held hostage by a minority of anti-Castro folks! – Peter Zschiesche, South Park

Following IRS rules

In response to “No double-dipping for Frye” (Editorial, April 6): Last year, SDCERS implemented an IRS policy that strengthened controls on a long-standing city policy allowing employees to return to work after retirement.

The Municipal Code for decades has allowed retired employees to return to work “provisionally” for up to 90 days. Per the city’s policy, any retired employee could return to work after retirement with only a minimum two-week separation of service. The policy is credited with assisting in cross-training new employees who would otherwise not be hired until the previous employee stops working.

In 2012, the IRS clarified its “bona fide separation” requirement. As a result, SDCERS now requires proof of at least a six-month break in service – 12 times longer than the previous requirement – and retirees must pledge that there is no prearranged agreement in order to return to work. If either stipulation is broken, retirement benefits are subject to a 10 percent early-withdrawal penalty.

SDCERS’ CEO Mark Hovey noted just weeks ago in his own letter to the editor that city council members, not SDCERS, pass the retirement benefit laws. SDCERS does not create or “encourage” policies affecting benefits. SDCERS administers benefits to conform with federal, state and local laws. Former councilman Mr. DeMaio knows this better than anyone.

Let’s not allow politics to get in the way of the facts. SDCERS is implementing new guidance by the IRS and restrictions on the city’s provisional employment policy are tighter than ever. – Christina Di Leva, communications manager, San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System

Press freedom is intact

Every time I think I’ve heard/read everything, another “everything” pops up. I’d like to address the letter to the editor by Marcy Young on March 31, titled “Freedom of the press is being targeted.”

I have read and heard a lot of leftist lingo and have never heard anyone in the current administration say that there was a plan to shut down Fox News and talk radio. And talk about “soft foreign policy” – President Bush’s administration was so soft it slithered us into believing a lie about Iraq resulting in more than 4,500 American deaths, let alone those innocent Iraqis.

If the truth is only in Fox News and talk radio, God help us all. – Carole Lombardi, Del Cerro

Gun control debate

In response to Bill Kenney’s letter April 9 [addressing “2 key lawmakers make gains on gun background checks,” April 8], regarding his statement that white male conservatives are the most law-abiding group in the country, I suggest statistics don’t bear that out. I recently read a column in “The Week” magazine regarding who is responsible for the majority of mass murders. It pointed out that white males comprise 30 percent of the population, but commit at least 70 percent of the mass murders. Mental-health issues are often cited by the gun lobby as the cause of, and the reason for, the murders. The column noted that women and girls with mental-health issues are not picking up semiautomatics and shooting schoolchildren. It also noted that month after month, year after year, it is seething white men and teenagers who use guns to massacre scores of strangers.

Over 60-plus years, I’ve owned many of guns of all kinds. I support the Second Amendment and the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to own firearms. The furor over “assault rifles” is detracting from real issues. Gun-control advocates say there is no reason for anyone to have an assault rifle. I’ve owned several. They’re fun to shoot. Their difference from a semi-automatic, clip-fed hunting rifle, chambering the same caliber ammo, with the exception of magazine capacity, is how they look. Looks aren’t lethal. Crimes committed with assault rifles are a very small percentage compared to those committed with handguns. I don’t minimize assault rifle crimes or their effect.

I suggest we’re looking for answers in the wrong place. States with strong gun laws have fewer gun deaths per capita than states with less or little regulation. White males buy guns in much larger numbers than any other group, and are most opposed to any kind of reasonable gun regulation.

As noted in the column, we need to ask honest questions about men, guns, and violence. Maybe we’ll get some useful answers. – Tom Tompkins, San Diego

False dichotomy

In response to “Disputes flare over fire plan” (April 8): California’s proposal to target a third of the state for habitat-clearance projects in the name of fire protection is not only counterproductive but a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars. This is why the Board of Forestry has received thousands of comments critical of the plan, including those from leading fire scientists and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. [Monday’s] article indicating that the National Park Service had “praised” the plan was actually in reference to a bland review made nearly two years ago during the plan’s initial scoping process. The Park Service has not released an opinion on the final proposal.

The board wants us to believe that we only have two choices: accept large wildland fires or clear millions of acres of native habitat. This is a false dichotomy. When science has clearly shown that the best way to protect lives and property from wildland fire is through a combination of fire safe community planning, fire safe structures and appropriate defensible space, the choices offered by the Board of Forestry fail to reflect what we know. The plan’s approach is similar to trying to prevent earthquakes.

Experience has shown that wildland fire is an inevitable part of Southern California’s environment. It’s best we acknowledge this in our land and community planning decisions instead of pretending, with huge government expenditures, that we can control nature. The board needs to retract their plan and go back to the drawing board to produce a comprehensive plan to reduce the risks associated with wildland fire. – Richard W. Halsey, director, The California Chaparral Institute, Escondido

Putsch at Penney’s

I wholeheartedly approved of his approach. Johnson permanently lowered prices on many items, including name brands, prices that previously were available only a few times a year at the expense of colorful multipage advertising inserts, discount coupons and nighttime price-changing crews.

The problem lies in the fact that most customers cannot “do the math.” One of my favorite items, Levi’s 514 jeans, is typically MSRP’d at $58. Occasionally they were available at buy one, get one half off ($43.50 a pair). During other sales the were available for $39.99 a pair. Johnson PERMANENTLY lowered the price to $40. No other department store, or outlet store, sells them for less, but many customers are apparently blind to that fact.

I also applaud the boutique (although I hate that word, honestly) concept, a much more contemporary display of the various departments’ merchandise, particularly in men’s and young men’s clothing.

I can only conclude that the bulk of JCP’s customers are mathematically challenged, unable to comprehend that Johnson’s changes saves them money all year long. – Steve Eaton, Carlsbad

Cal Grant math doesn’t add up

In response to “Dream Act application count for Cal Grants tops 20,000” (April 9): Diana Fuentes-Michel, executive director of the Student Aid Commission, says “all Californians who qualify for Cal Grants will receive aid – and their award amount will not be reduced.”

Simple math says that adding 20,000 grants to the system without reducing the award amounts will require more money. It doesn’t seem to me that we have extra money in the budget for this right now, can someone please ask the legislators who passed this law what they plan to cut elsewhere to fund this? – Todd Maddison, Oceanside

Windmills and wildlife

The U-T reports that those running a raptor bird migration count in Borrego are disheartened by a much lower than anticipated count (“Watchers disappointed by hawks’ low numbers,” Local, April 8). More, they seem uncertain of possible causes.

Let me suggest they look under the giant windmills and count the bird bodies there. Green-energy advocates have seem to avert their eyes to the downside of windmills, etc. – Arnold Flick, San Diego